Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

Living Edition
| Editors: David M. Kaplan

Multifunctional Agriculture

  • Stefan Mann
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_67-2

Synonyms

Introduction

The innovative, indeed provocative nature of the concept of multifunctional agriculture can only be understood fully by thinking back to agriculture’s role in twentieth-century society during the Cold War era, which was simply to provide food for a growing world population. Within this line of thought, two different scenarios were posited: whereas Neo-Malthusians seriously questioned the ability of farmers to cope with the rapid increase in population, particularly in southern Asia (Commander 1986), others, adopting a more western perspective, observed the remarkable productivity gains in the farming sector and concluded that only half of the land would have to be farmed (Kuhlmann 1986). In any case, agriculture was merely the location of a production function in which labor, fertilizer, and other factors were to be transformed into wheat, rice, and beef. Organic agriculture and other attempts...

Keywords

Livestock Number Slat Floor Human Capital Externality Multifunctional Agriculture Economic Protectionism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, K. (1992). Agricultural trade liberalisation and the environment: A global perspective. The World Economy, 15(1), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balisacan, A. M., & Roumasset, J. A. (1987). Public choice of economic policy: The growth of agricultural protection. Review of World Economics, 123(2), 232–248.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgärtner, S. (2000). Ambivalent joint production and the natural environment. Heidelberg/New York: Physica-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgärtner, S., & Schiller, J. (2001). Kuppelproduktion – Ein Konzept zur Beschreibung der Entstehung von Umweltproblemen. In F. Beckenbach, U. Hampicke, C. Leipert, G. Meran, J. Minsch, H. G. Nutzinger, R. Pfriem, J. Weimann, F. Wirl, & U. Witt (Eds.), Jahrbuch Ökologische Ökonomik (Ökonomische Naturbewertung, Vol. 2, pp. 353–393). Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, R. M., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2007). Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method. Agricultural Economics, 29(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benton, T. (1993). Natural relations: Ecology, animal rights and social justice. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  7. Böbner, C., & Vogel, S. (2007). Was erwartet die schweizerische Bevölkerung von der Landwirtschaft? Bern: FOAG.Google Scholar
  8. Commander, S. (1986). Malthus and the theory of ‘unequal powers’: Population and food production in India, 1800–1947. Modern Asian Studies, 20(4), 661–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dietrich, V. (1953). Forstwirtschaftspolitik. Hamburg: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
  10. EEAC Working Group on Agricultural Policy. (2000). The Model of European Agriculture (MEA) in areas under environmental stress – Conclusions. Advisory report. London: EEAC.Google Scholar
  11. Granberg, L. (1999). The emergence of welfare state rationality in Finnish agricultural policy. Sociologia Ruralis, 39(3), 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuhlmann, F. (1986). Zur Wirkung technischer Fortschritte im Agrarsektor. Land, Agrarwirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 3(2), 247–270.Google Scholar
  13. Mann, S., & Wüstemann, H. (2008). Multifunctionality and a new focus on externalities. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(4), 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. OECD. (2001a). Multifunctionality: Applying the OECD analytical framework – Guiding policy design. Paris. http://www1.oecd.org/agr/mf/
  15. OECD. (2001b). Multifunctionality – Towards an analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publication Service.Google Scholar
  16. Paster, G. (1980). Alternative methods of agriculture. Wageningen: TNO.Google Scholar
  17. Potter, C., & Burney, J. (2002). Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO – Legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies, 18(1), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rørstad, P. K., Vatn, A., & Kvakkestad, V. (2007). Why do transaction costs of agricultural policies vary? Agricultural Economics, 36(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thiede, G. (1992). Die Grüne Chance – Landwirte zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt. Frankfurt: DLG-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Zunino, M., & Barbero, E. (1993). Scarabaeids, cattle and pastures: Some deontological considerations. Folia Entomológica Mexicana, 87, 95–101.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agroscope, Institute for Sustainability SciencesEttenhausenSwitzerland